witcherfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Triss Merigold/@comment-88.5.17.226-20180708082142/@comment-88.5.17.226-20180708203840
First of all, I'm sorry for all the words that are about to follow, but I need to explain myself satisfactorily, and there were too many points to adress to answer with just a small bit of text. I didn't say I know the exact method that Triss used to seduce Geralt, I have simply stuck to the facts, and anyone can see them by opening and reading Blood of Elves. These facts are the following, and forgive me if I seem patronizing, but I think it’s necessary to repeat them: Triss used magic to seduce Geralt: something unnatural, a power before which he is vulnerable. The facts are that Geralt was manipulated, in a greater or smaller way, and that therefore it was rape. That's what matters. Not what the method was. So your argument is irrelevant. The vagueness of the sentence, if you want to say it like that, is irrelevant, because it reveals enough. And do you really think that Geralt of Rivia would forgive Triss and welcome her with open arms to Kaer Morhen if he knew what she did to him? Of course she did it without him knowing about it. I don’t understand why you told me that during TW1 it was not known that Yennefer was alive. I already know that ... although it was not clear that she was dead, either, considering that Ciri took both Geralt and Yennefer’s corpses, and nothing told them that Geralt had been the only lucky one. The only one that had been revived thanks to whatever Ciri had done or facilitated. But hey, that has nothing to do with the discussion. Not really. The problem is not that nobody tells him about Yennefer. I support what they did, or at least the broad strokes. Not telling him much about his past, letting him fill in the gaps himself, because that's something Geralt decided for himself. I cannot complain about that. It might not be the best option to deal with his amnesia, but it was his own. The problem is that Triss takes advantage of Yennefer's absence, of the many gaps in Geralt's memory. She used lines that Yennefer once said, evoking old moments they shared, letting him assume that the sorceresses he had been in love with was her, instead of Yennefer. Okay? That's what I said from the beginning, no more or less than that. Yes, I know Geralt fell into her manipulations, that he was partly to blame for it and he played an active role in their romance, but because a victim falls into the manipulations of his abuser that suddenly means that is not a bad thing anymore? Do you really think like that? In addition, it’s curious that she is willing to tell him so much but stops when the time comes to divulge the most inconvenient details for her, for her goal: to win Geralt’s heart. Don’t you think so? You said that the sentence about Triss using a bit of magic to seduce Geralt is too vague to serve as evidence. So, why do you settle for the bad excuse that it was CDPR first game, and it was done on limited budget? Although those two things are true, they are not a reason for them to reuse Yennefer’s lines. And you are forgetting an important detail, like many people. The Witcher sage was popular long before CDPR and the video games arrived. In Poland, the saga was basically like Harry Potter in the rest of the world. Many people bought the game because of books. Do you think CDPR was going to overlook what reusing those sentences would suggest to book fans? That if they needed to sacrifice some things to save money, they would sacrifice such an important part of the plot, of the game itself, instead of skimping on other less important parts? Look, man. Admit it. The money that could be saved by reusing some sentences from the books is insignificant. Their budget is not a valid excuse to clear away Triss’s wrong doings. And they put too much care and attention into the details of the game to be able to convince any rational person that it was done just because of clumsiness, inexperience, or whatever. You’re grasping at straws. Finally, comparing Triss with Fringilla Vigo does not do her any favors. You know that, right? Since we are on that, please tell me when Yennefer did or try to do something like that. I must have forgotten. Lambert had sex with Triss, and more than once. It is the only thing that makes sense. It is not a conspiracy theory at all. Maybe it started before it was known that Geralt was alive, but it continue even after that. It’s more than clear and if you do not recognize that, is because you have made a conscious decision to ignore what he said. He said he escaped through the window because he did not want to hurt a friend. And he looks not very subtly at Geralt out of the corner of his eye. What other explanation can you think of? That Lambert was secretly having sex with Roach XVII and did not want to let him know that his loyal steed/mare had traded him for a younger model? Come on. I respect your opinions and I think you have the right to maintain them, as well as whatever rationalizations are necessary for them to make sense, but… well… They don’t really hold up against even a cursory examination. About your last paragraph: Are you really going to resort to that? To paint my motives as childish and thoughtless, and call me sad person? Maybe in my first post I sound a bit condescending, but that does not mean that the best thing is to resort to personal attacks.